I'm still working on having ZoomText read R Naimon's book, but a wild proposition he begins with constitutes almost as big a barrier as my eyesight: he simply declares that Marx's theory of value is a theory of prices. Starting there, nothing useful can be said about Marx. I'll still try to read (listen to) the book, but in so far as views of Marx help him define his topic the book is so much hot air. That probably does not apply to the book as a whole. It is relevant here, however, because of his strange obsession with the transformation problem. That seems t be a screen between him and the world.
Carrol P.S. Moishe Postone: (from memory) " Marx wrote a Critique of Political Economy, not a Critical Political Economy." > -----Original Message----- > From: pen-l-boun...@lists.csuchico.edu [mailto:pen-l- > boun...@lists.csuchico.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Devine > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 12:30 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] hollywood-legend-ed-asner-has-outraged-thebourgeoisie > > Robert Naiman <nai...@justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > > Well, CB has free speech right, presumably. He can use any subject line he > > wants. > > Of course. I never told him to shut up. However, it's part of _my_ > free-speech rights (and part of the purpose of pen-l, I believe) to > disagree with his opinions if I think he's wrong. > > Right-wingers often complain about how "everyone" is "too sensitive" > these days, so we can't use our god-given free speech to use the > N-word, etc. Well, here's an example of this kind of > "over-sensitivity": I disagree with CB's merger of two concepts and > Robert insinuates that I am violating CB's free-speech rights! > > > MoveOn talks about "Republicans" because that's what gets Democrats > > to open the email. CB talked about "bourgeoisie" because that's what gets > > Pen-lers to open the email. > > advertising! > > > But if you actually watch the video, it doesn't > > say boo about Republicans. It talks about the 1%. > > It's good that moveon doesn't mention the GOP, since the DP (both > before and after) contributed mightily to the power of the 1%. That's > because the DP represents the bourgeoisie, too. Of course, it's a > different wing, as I've said before. > > > Technically, you could > > argue that the 1% are not equal to the "bourgeoisie." You could also argue > > that the issue we really need to address is the latest research on the > > transformation problem and the labor theory of value. > > People on pen-l can talk about anything as long as it's okay with our > benevolent overlord (Michael Perelman) Talking about one subject > (including arcane subjects such as the "LTV") does not exclude others > (e.g. how Obama is the best thing since sliced bread). > > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your > own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
